In a controversial ruling that was a major setback to gun rights organizations and the Second Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the Biden-era rule regulating so-called “ghost guns.”

Also often called the “frame or receiver” rule, the Biden Department of Justice published the final rule in 2022. The case, Garland v. VanDerStok, challenged the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Final Rule that redefined important legal terms dealing with guns, including “firearm,” “receiver” and “frame,” making the longstanding American tradition of building personal firearms pretty much a thing of the past.

In April 2024, the Supreme Court voted 4-3 to consider the challenge, and oral arguments began last October.

At issue was whether the DOJ and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) overstepped their bounds in promulgating the Final Rule. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals had unanimously ruled in a 2023 case that the DOJ had overstepped its bounds in making the final rule, upholding an earlier district court decision on the matter.

In that ruling, Judge Kurt Engelhardt, who wrote the majority opinion, agreed in no uncertain terms that ATF overstepped its bounds in making the Final Rule.

“ATF, in promulgating its Final Rule, attempted to take on the mantle of Congress to ‘do something’ with respect to gun control,” Judge Engelhardt wrote in the opinion. “But it is not the province of an executive agency to write laws for our nation. That vital duty, for better or for worse, lies solely with the legislature.”

On Wednesday, however, Supreme Court justices voted 7-2 to uphold the Final Rule, with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissenting.

“Some home hobbyists enjoy assembling them,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the 24-page opinion for the majority. “But criminals also find them attractive. The ‘Buy Build Shoot’ kit can be ‘readily converted’ into a firearm too, for it requires no more time, effort, expertise or specialized tools to complete.”

In the end, Gorsuch said there was no question that the Final Rule should be upheld.

“The GCA embraces, and thus permits ATF to regulate, some weapon parts kits and unfinished frames or receivers, including those we have discussed,” his opinion concluded. “Because the court of appeals held otherwise, its judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

In his dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that firearms parts shouldn’t be subject to a regulation that could open the door to rules on other popular weapons.

“The statutory terms ‘frame’ and ‘receiver’ do not cover the unfinished frames and receivers contained in weapon-parts kits, and weapon-parts kits themselves do not meet the statutory definition of ‘firearm,’” Thomas wrote in his dissent. “That should end the case. The majority instead blesses the government’s overreach based on a series of errors regarding both the standard of review and the interpretation of the statute.”

For its part, the gun-rights organization Firearms Policy Center (FPC) said in a released statement that it was “disappointed” with the ruling.

“The Court’s majority opinion twists the plain language and meaning of the statutes to uphold the ATF’s rule,” FPC wrote. “The Supreme Court cynically built up a falsework to shore up the ATF’s improper rule in spite of the text and history of the statutes. We will also continue communicating with the White House, the Attorney General and the Department of Justice to encourage a full repeal of the ATF’s rule and take other FPC-supported actions.”